28 November 2004

Today's Sunday Times, in a prime news page feature on miscarriages, quoted a Professor P.C. Wong as saying, 'Biologically speaking, the optimum age for a woman to give birth at is 20.' Otherwise, 'she should try to have a child by 27', due to the greater risk of miscarriages and childhood disorders.

Furthermore, as the risk of losing a baby is highest during the first 12 weeks, a Dr Foong Lian Chuen of Gleneagles Hospital recommends that working mothers should consider taking leave during this period.

Member of Parliament Halimah Yacob suggested that employers could be more flexible in granting leave. 'We also should look into educating Singaporeans, who may be so caught up in their work that they postpone having babies, without fully understanding the consequences,' she said.

And finally, a Ms Lim, whose experience with miscarriage is cited, is now urging friends to have their babies as soon as they're married. 'I tell them not to wait. It doesn't mean that when you finally want a baby, you can have one immediately.'

Madam Halimah, Singaporeans are so caught up with their work because that is exactly what they have been told and conditioned to do from their first day in school. How many employers can you name who would allow would-be mothers to take that first 12 weeks off (much less grant more than the stipulated minimum maternity leave) without penalising them, much less giving them the sack, without any hope of recompense? And at 27, most women (or men for that matter) are barely picking up steam in their career, whether in humble trades or factory positions, or professional and managerial roles, where making your mark means working flat out for the sake of corporate profitability and spending substantial time in the air.

Again, the combined voice of politicians, the local press and their case studies points to the same old message: get hitched and have as many babies as you can soonest. And be as economically productive as possible at the same time.... and oh yes, you not only have to bear the full responsibility of it all (perhaps with a little help from your in-laws), we won't help you either if your employer penalises you for choosing family commitments, your mental health suffers (you then become a burden rather than wealth generator), your medical costs spiral (you are wholly responsible for taking care of your own health, meaning getting enough sleep and exercising sufficiently), your children turn out to be 'retards' rather than 'normal' kids (too bad, we will mutter some sympathies but that's all we can afford), and of course if you lose your job in the process, you are redundant for a good reason, and should settle for any task that pays, even though your hard-earned skills will mean nought. After all, $1,200 a month is more than adequate for a family of four.

I wonder if mrs budak and I could get ourselves divorced, and still stay in the same place and grow old together, if only to point a ex-marital middle finger at all those who believe that love MUST inevitably lead to marriage and procreation for its own sake. That would probably spare us from the tireless maternal queries of folks who think our lives are incomplete without a genetic heritage.

Sorry, I suddenly realise my error. It's not even for our own sake; it's for the very future of the nation and economy, for who would provide for our old age (just as this generation does so for both their parents as well as children) if not our descendants and progenital GDP generators? Not the state surely, since the very idea of welfare is hateful to our Asian value of self-reliance, and of course, haven't we been repeatedly told that our very own mandated self-funded providential savings will be barely adequate to serve our retirement needs, assuming we even reach that ever-rising age? No wonder they say being childless is an act of utter irresponsibility, for in doing so, one is foregoing an investment into a future where your every whim and fancy will be sponsored by those whom you have given life and thus owe you a living for doing so.

27 November 2004

Was trawling around the net (for wholesome stuff of course!) and found this interesting letter to the Today paper, 18 March 2004.

Oral sex is a threat to institution of familyI
was rather concerned that lawmakers are advocating a change in laws
(such as that on oral sex) on the basis that social "norms" are
changing. I fail to see the logic in such reasoning. The
"rightness" of an act is not determined by whether more people are
practising it. For example, it is an established fact that more people
are engaging in child pornography now. Should we then abolish laws
against child pornography?Rather, the "rightness" of an act
should be based on whether it serves the natural function of the act
and, in the process, promotes the good of the individual, group or
society as a whole.It does not take much for us to realise that
the male and female sexual organs were designed by nature to be used
in a complementary fashion. Sex involves an act capable of generating
new life. And while pleasure is a part of the sexual act, it is not an
end to be sought in itself. If pleasure is sought as an end, then we
shall be saying that sodomy, bestiality and even sado-masochism are
all right.If we permit oral sex on the basis that it gives
rise to pleasure and that more people are practising it, then it is
likely that more people will practise it. As it becomes more of a
"norm", we will, as a nation, pay a heavy price for it. The number of
pregnancies will decline and there will probably be a rise in
alternative lifestyle practices that will threaten the institution of
the family.- Dr Wee Sip Leong

'Unnatural' appears to be the most common argument for opposing any act or practice that goes against tradition. I see two corollaries: first, the intrinsic value of the family institution (presumably the All-American WASP nuclear family, as our moral crusaders don't seem the acknowledge the value of time-honoured traditional Asian practices such as harems, concubines and seraglios) to the survival of society; and second, the notion that any sexual act that is not under the banner of matrimony AND does not lead to procreation as its ultimate goal is simply... "unnatural'.

Besides falling back on the argument from tradition, which begets the question of why ancient traditions such as slavery and foot-binding aren't preserved in this decadent modern world, one wonders exactly how the correlation between societal good and sexual mores arose, as well as the exact mechanism by which non-coital fellatio or cunnilingus contribute to the downfall of nations. It seems that for some, the very pursuit of pleasure and refusal to contribute to the national gene pool is tantamount to heresy of the highest order, and deserving of damnation on earth and beyond.

26 November 2004

Notwithstanding its harmony with national community development goals, groups such as "Focus on the Family" appear to me to be exercising their God-given right of free speech and thought with more than the usual assertiveness of late. Perhaps so, because the nation is facing moral choices of heavenly (or hellish) consequences, such as whether to invite in one-armed bandits, glossies that tell women how to take control of their sex lives (wow! doesn't that threaten our stable, patrimonial society where men rule over women as nature intended?), establishments where swaying your booty on top of a narrow serving table isn't a felony, and (gasp!) the very idea that menwhohavesexwithmen are not suffering from a mental and spiritual disorder and should enjoy no less rights in employment and life than menwhohavesexwithwomen or even menwhohavesexwithmanywomen.

I certainly agree that the institution known as the family suffers tremendous strains and faces many threats in this age of non-lifelong employment and frequent fliers. Reputable childcare facilities are apparently harder to find than top tier primary schools, as more aged parents and in-laws are now actually wanting to pursue their own lives and dreams than quietly retire as responsible baby-sitters who would not have to incur costs for the state. And with the constant call to upgrade and boost productivity (which in Singapore simply means working longer hours and putting up with more shit from your bosses), it is a wonder how workers – from assembly line ladies to cubicle farm drones (one regionalised couple I know is barely home for more than week a month, a child would certainly make them much more 'productive') – actually find time (as well as the peace of mind that comes from knowing your job is fairly secure) to foster children who will not grow up under the tender care of maids, MTV and pokeMons.

But I digress: as annointed voices proclaim, families are in fact under greater assault from the so-called freedoms of association that modern society grants young people, in the range of lifestyle choices they now make which utterly disregard the greater good of society, and the way they gratify their fleshly passions in wanton abandon instead of offering themselves as living sacrifices to the altar of matrimony. The very idea that people should NOT want to form families and choose rather alternate modes of life is clearly a notion that will rock the very foundations of this earth and wreck unimaginable disaster upon this chosen nation. If truth be told, even telling innocent virgins about how they could minimise the risk of nasty genital sores, immune system failure or that live-long plaque known as babies by putting on a safety jacket is tantamount to telling them that's it ok to do whatever you want to your body. Sorry, that's not even right: it should be that the jackets don't even work at all, so don't even ask, don't tell and don't do anything until our Heavenly Father has thoroughly approved your license to fuck (and only in the right positions, sans unnatural barriers).

To our society's moral crusaders, such good work is surely a vital step into converting this nation into a veritable Kingdom of God. The effort to suppress all forms, expressions and manifestations of lust in this land will be a spiritual battle that will not be yielded. After all, it's by far the most abominable of all sins, a hideous demon that eats into the very core of humanity, compared to the paltry misendeavours that are pride, anger, envy, sloth, covetousness and gluttony.

24 November 2004

"While the road to a genuinely healthy lifestyle of abstinence or faithfulness can admittedly be difficult for many, respect for their dignity as human beings, and for their health, demands that we never give up on them," says Dr Lee Hew Mun in today's ST Forum, in advocating the Abstinence+Fidelity message over condom awareness and usage amongst people vulnerable to AIDS.

Is promoting condom usage, especially in societies where men practice rampant promiscuity (whether or not with the approval – grudging or otherwise – of their spouses) really that ineffective in fighting AIDS? Do most gays (or freely fucking heterosexuals) really prefer not fucking at all for the sake of upholding their own dignity (as defined by Dr. Lee and his ilk) than fucking smartly?

It seems the issue isn't really about preventing AIDS or helping people, but turning programmes that could help people make informed choices into moral improvement crusades on behalf of ideals that simply are untenable.

“Eyes shining, mouths open, triumphant, they savored the right of domination.”

– William Golding, "Lord of the Flies"

Was briefly back in the land of chisel & stone today, with a working lunch at a cafe-restaurant in Bukit Pasir (now a mini township in its own right) featuring a not-unextensive Malay-Nonya menu (the Nonya salad is a must-try). Alas, the old salter's port has become an industrial leviathan that is consuming and growing at a furious pace. It is no longer quite the home I knew.

While walking back home with mrs budak from her mum's, we saw a trio of children, two boys and a girl of about 5-7, gathering around a thicket off the flat landing. "A bird! A bird! They cried!" at a creature that tweetered in the bush (it was actually a shrew, but I thought better of enlightening them). With the artlessness that is natural of the unfettered young, they began picking up sticks and stones and hurling these objects at the spot where they thought the creature might be. With immense delight.

We could not help but ask them why do you do that? Would you like it to have sticks thrown at you? The answer (or lackof) was an unabashed display of pure enthusiasm as only a child could muster. In this case, directly at any hapless creation that gets in their path. No wonder that particular block seems to lack its share of resident stray cats....

The mum(?) was watching from a short distance away and seemed totally unflustered at her charges' wild assault on the animal. Even when I extended my hand to try to block one of the boys from shot-putting a thick piece of wood, he flung it nonetheless, and it hit my palm. Not that he cared, since his immediate concern was to find an even bigger missile. I was so 'disarmed' that I even forgot I had my digicam with me, which I could have used to document the scene.

The mother called the kids off their game after a little while (with mrs budak adding an audible cry of sarcastic disapproval), and joined them in peering for the "bird". Not a word of reprimand was heard, and we stared at the family for a minute or two until it was clear their interest in nature had waned, for the night.

The primal urge to hunt and kill may have had survival value for man in more desperate eras. But it seems these instincts continue to be expressed in raw fury to this day. But if we are creatures of culture and civility, no more slaves to basal drives, what explains such irrepressible abandon at the sight of God's humbler creations?

“He became absorbed beyond mere happiness as he felt himself exercising control over living things.”

23 November 2004

Even scarier than the reputedly deathlike atmosphere in Singapore newsrooms is the wrath of holy warriors such as Mdm Guwe, who sought in today’s ST Forum to assert God’s divine will over all affairs of men, whether or not one believes in His Holiness.

For once, I have no quarrel with Ms Chua, whose commentary triggered Mdm Guwe’s fury at the columnist’s questioning of whether the religious lobby might (as in the US) gain electoral clout in Singapore, noting that “the danger comes if any one group tries to impose on others its notion of what is right and wrong.”

According to Mdm Guwe, “it is logical that those who take their religion seriously would vote according to their religious convictions” and that in the US, public issues are equal to religious issues. It is thus “illogical to insist that religion ought not be in the picture at all.” This, she adds, “would be denying religious freedom to citizens of a democratic country.” What then, I wonder, of the freedoms of non-religious (or adherents of pagan gods) citizens?

Considering that at least 48% of American voters did not vote for God’s chosen candidate, while a fair number of those who did so almost certainly chose the burning bush on security or economic grounds rather than his Texan-sized Bible belt, it beggars the question of why people of a certain religion (nay, actually a vocal, hardcore subset of that religion) insist that a nation’s policies be moulded entirely in conformity with what they see as divine will.

Mdm Guwe further hopes that her anointed brethren will not fail to tell her what God wants her to do. “I would be very disappointed if the shepherds in charge of me do not act as their US counterparts did in the elections,” she baas. Faith in God (as well as the men who call themselves God’s voices) appears to suffer no questions or qualms about using the mechanism of democratic processes to overturn the rights and wishes of all who are not wholeheartedly abiding in Jehovah’s arms.